|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2006 : 17:11:43
|
Yet another piece of the puzzle found....
quote:
An apparent crater as big as Ohio has been found in Antarctica. Scientists think it was carved by a space rock that caused the greatest mass extinction on Earth, 250 million years ago.
The crater, buried beneath a half-mile of ice and discovered by some serious airborne and satellite sleuthing, is more than twice as big as the one involved in the demise of the dinosaurs.
The crater's location, in the Wilkes Land region of East Antarctica, south of Australia, suggests it might have instigated the breakup of the so-called Gondwana supercontinent, which pushed Australia northward, the researchers said.
Crikey! Now that's a meteor, by golly!
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2006 : 19:13:46 [Permalink]
|
Thanks! "Crikey" is an understatement.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2006 : 20:42:54 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, lets just overlook the giant amount of water covering 75% of the planet, or the "Great Flood."
Remember before God created the earth, it was null and void and without form. So yes, the earth is probubly that old, yet nothing living on the planet when they hit the earth. Old earth doesn't mean humans old. In order for life to have evloved you scientits need that much time for your phantom physics and 'sound' science to have had happened. All this complexity couldn't have happened over night you know.
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2006 : 20:53:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Yeah, lets just overlook the giant amount of water covering 75% of the planet, or the "Great Flood."
The Flood for which there is no evidence.quote:
Remember before God created the earth, it was null and void and without form.
Where's the evidence for this?quote:
So yes, the earth is probubly that old, yet nothing living on the planet when they hit the earth.
You're now making stuff up, 'cause that isn't what Genesis says.quote:
Old earth doesn't mean humans old.
Why are you conflating "human life" with "all life." God didn't create humans until after he'd created everything else.quote:
In order for life to have evloved you scientits need that much time for your phantom physics and 'sound' science to have had happened. All this complexity couldn't have happened over night you know.
That's right. You just think it all happened in the last 6000 years or so.quote:
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious...
Then it's a damn good thing nobody uses radiocarbon dating for anything more than 70,000 years old or thereabouts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2006 : 21:34:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
... God created the earth, it was null and void ...
Like a cancelled check? 
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 00:12:14 [Permalink]
|
| Lies and liars. You will all burn for it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 00:29:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Lies and liars. You will all burn for it.
Show me where atoms spring to life, and maybe then you can call me a liar. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 02:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Lies and liars. You will all burn for it.
Show me where atoms spring to life, and maybe then you can call me a liar.
I do not call you a liar; I'm sure that you believe every word you've written on these boards. I merely call you a malinformed, brain-washed follower of the teachings of ancient peoples whose world view encompassed a stationary horizon and nothing beyond, and one who should know better.
Radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. quote:
Introduction
Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.
The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.
Now then, having looked over that site, perhaps you can explain to me why there is no Devonian Bunny. And I am still waiting for your comments on genetic research involving fruit flies.
I love it when AiG and/or ICR is referenced. Those guys really are liars!
This is a very interesting find. I'm looking forward to further info.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
